You will get no argument from me on that. That was a mistake not because they went beyond the BF&M but because they superimposed dogma over the Scripture. That is always a mistake, yet is seems to be very fashonable in post modern times such as in these we live. Would you agree?

I guess this is where you and I may find disagreement. Are you saying that our agencies are not able to impose policies and standards on personnell if it further defines the generic terms of the BF&M?

If that is the case, how did you and Robert Tenery do what you did at the SSB? What I am saying is that parameters were narrowed for the 1963 BF&M. I know we were trying to get those Ex's in charge to just get them in line, but whose theology did you adhere to with Durham's Commentary? Isn't that the same thing the IMB Trustees have done with PPL and Baptism?

No, I am not saying that agencies are not to impose policies. I think that one problem is the lack of policies.

My point is that the BF&M is at best a secondary source for Christians and Christian institutions. The Bible is the primary source and should be used as such. This old garbage about the Bible speaking one way to me and another to you is heresay.

I cannot remember one time when Bob, CB or any other trustee that served with me pulled the BF&M to settle a theological problem. Someone always went to the Bible. One thing that has happened since 2000 is that the BF&M has been given too much "clout" among the folks that historically say we are a people of the "BOOK"

Really, wasn't the problem more that only designated employees were told they had to sign the BF&M63 and others did not? Also, those signing it were also not operating within the frame work of it. Also, when one was called back to the BF&M 63 it did no good because they would assign different meanings to the word, therefore the Bible was the standard we went back to.

Anyway, Dr. McKissic's motion, if followed, will surely bring this issue to a head. Although, I suspect that he would have the same rude awakening that Dr. Rankin had when he pressed a vote with the IMB BoT. From my observation, the attendees of the convention are, by and large, far more apt to oppose this type of amendment. That is the problem with amending the BF&M in this way. Only a small number of people decide, and who are they anyway?

If a counter amendment was adopted, the result would be chaos and the destruction of the SBC. It would be better if things would go back to how they were and we let this lie. But, that time has probably passed.

The Arkansas Razorbaptists

The hearts of once quiet, passive pew sitters who have since become fired up for spreading the good news about the life transforming power of a relationship with Jesus Christ: Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, Sola Fide, Sola Dei Gloria, Sola Scriptura, Sola Cruce, Solo Evangelio.